Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (3rd)

User:Fredrick day

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer

(June 22 vandalism) (July 6 vandalism) (for completeness, Koc --> Allemandtando, legitimate name change)
 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Abd (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day was blocked for vandalism and gross incivility, see Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (with lists of used IPs), and Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day (2nd). Fd has continued to vandalize my user and talk pages with lowered frequency, as well as to stalk me. Latest incidents were April 29, June 11, June 22, and July 6.. (Bold is presumptive, other is likely). There was also an edit to User talk:Shapiros10 or User talk:Xp54321, I'm not sure which, which seems to have been deleted, possibly by Alison, and which may have been made in the last month.
 * Evidence

My suspicion was originally aroused by the behavior of User:Allemandtando, which resembled that of Fredrick day in its level of confrontation. This editor registered as User:Killerofcruft and quickly became involved in an AfD, as well as in controversy following the AfD, and I previously noted the similarity to Fredrick day. What I had not noticed until today was (1) that I edited that AfD at 20:00, 19 June 2008. Koc registered at 20:32, 19 June 2008, thus suspicion that this was related to my edit is enhanced. (Koc voted in the AfD the next day.) and then the first edit by Koc was a minute later, to Midnighter‎, which could seem unrelated, except that "Stormwatch" would be a likely search for someone researching Donna Upson, the subject of the AfD. When the AfD closed merge, Killerofcruft immediately engaged actively in handling the merge, showing high interest, and became contentious when the closing admin reversed his decision.

See a report on Koc's earliest edit history at User:Abd/Allemandtando.

Killerofcruft was the subject of an AN/I report where the appearance of sock puppetry was discussed, but, except for my comment, other puppet masters were suspected. AN/I report.

Note that the AN/I report was closed with a note that it stood as a warning to Koc, but Koc later dismissed it as "crap." Very much like Fredrick day. If this is not Fredrick day, it would appear that, unfortunately, he's been cloned. Because of Fd's extensive use of open wireless routers and proxies, this may not be conclusive, but, at least, it should be checked.

RFCU would appear warranted, and urgent because of expiring CU records.


 * It has been claimed below that there are no diffs in this report. Diffs are above for (1) the edit of mine that was possibly the trigger for registration of Killerofcruft, and diff or log for the registration is at User:Abd/Allemandtando, which is short and shows the early edit history with diffs, including the early involvement with Donna Upson -- the Ottawa election edits are related to that. This alone, registration and immediate involvement with AfD, with evidence of detailed knowledge of Wikipedia procedure, has been considered evidence of sock puppetry. The editor likewise claims not to have been warned, ever, but see the top of the AN/I report, I've bolded the archive page reference above. Here is a diff for the close:, and to see what the warning was about, you'd have to read the report at the above link. The close comment follows:
 * Either file an RFCU or stop casting aspersions because of a philosophical disagreement. KOC has been advised that his edit summaries are inappropriate (through this discussion); nothing further can be accomplished here. Horologium (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC).
 * So, finally, the RFCU has been filed.... --Abd (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments

This is nonsense and a fishing trip, some of the comments are truely bizzare - for example "first edit by Koc was a minute later, to Midnighter‎, which could seem unrelated, except that "Stormwatch" would be a likely search for someone researching Donna Upson".

The Midnighter is a comic book character own by DC Comics, he is a member of the superhero team The Authority, previously to this, within his fictional universe, he was a member of Stormwatch another superhero team written by Warren Ellis (it's very good by the way and worth picking up). I know all of this because... em.. I'm a comic book collector. Why stormwatch is related to Donna Upson is beyond me - is she a superhero as well?

This user has been warned on his page by administrators a number of times not to harasses other users - most recently in his conduct (from first glance) towards some administrators. Why he has such an interest in me, I just don't know. I have asked him on a number of occasions to fill a request for user comment and bring this before the community, but it seems that's just too much hard work. I consider this sock puppet case an abuse of process - I spend my days cleaning up articles and adding scholar sources, I've never been warned, I've never been blocked, I've never been warned that I'll be warned! nothing! The editor should be directed to use the correct process and file a Request for user comment - I will comply with any judgements put down by the community in such a process - no questions asked. On the evidence presented here, the intrusion into my identity presented by CU is a fishing trip and abusive. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Further comment: I'm guessing this abuse of process was prompt by the MFD of a watchfile he keeps about me - see here. Note, when this was nominated it looked like this as it had done for two weeks or so - it's only purpose was to let me know he was watching me.


 * I have a further problem in that I have been advised off site not to communicate with Abd in any form (which this does) for reasons I cannot explain here because they might constitute WP:LEGAL but I will be willing to discuss via email with an admin. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (scratches head. Huh? I have a fertile imagination, and it came up with zilch on this one.) --Abd (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Allemandtando, for almost a month, begged me and taunted me to provide an actual "complaint." Well, here it is. About a very narrow issue. Is he or isn't he a sock of Fredrick day? Suspicions of sock puppetry dogged Killerofcruft from his first days after registration. It certainly was not just me, see the diffs and refs above. He claims he has never been warned. If it were relevant, I'd provide diffs of warnings, but.... it's not relevant. This is an SSP report, not an RfC/U. Whether he was warned or not is moot. Whether he is a useful editor or not (he's certainly been useful in some ways) is likewise moot. --Abd (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I became confused between Stormwatch and Stormfront.org, which is an American National Socialist site. My apologies, I'll strike that.--Abd (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Appears totally circumstantial. Some claim could be made that those IP's are socks of frederick day, but no claim aside from vague behavioral relation (and an emphatic denial) links KoC to frederick day.  This looks like a fishing trip.  See what a checkuser results in, but if it is anything other than the exact same IP as Fred day at the moment of account creation, there isn't much else to go on.  Also, for circumstantial evidence, this SSP is woefully short on diffs of KoC's behavior and long on allegations. Protonk (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The IPs are socks of Fredrick day, the first highly likely, the second possible. Direct connection between those IPs and Allemandtando is possible, but unlikely; rather, confrontational and uncivil edits, in connection with certain issues, coming from a certain ISPs are very, very likely Fredrick day, and connection and identification of Fd socks has been made in the past on this by administrators. It used to be that the most common IPs for him were in the range of 87.112 - 87.115. See the SSP talk page referenced above. What may be legitimate edits from other users do show up for those dynamic IPs; however, they are quite rare. Fd has repeatedly taunted Wikipedia administrators with, more or less, "I'm going to edit how I want to and there is nothing you can do about it." This, of course, is about Fd, not Allemandtando. If Allemandtando is editing from a normal IP, not one known to have been used by Fd, then he isn't likely to be Fd, and further procedure to deal with actual editor behavior would then become necessary, or the matter would be dropped. However, because checkuser information that "might" show something will be expiring very shortly, it became necessary to file this immediately. And when I saw the connection between my vote in an AfD and the registration of Allemandtando and his subsequent appearance and strong involvement there, my prior suspicion raised to a level of probable. Diffs showing Alle's early behavior are in User:Abd/Allemandtando and have not been repeated here, that page should be considered incorporated in this report. (continued below, broken up by Protonk --Abd (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (breaking up the formatting here, sorry). I saw the linked page there as well.  The diffs on there are pretty weak tea.  Again, this SSP is based largely on circumstantial and behavioral evidence.  something more compelling to me would be specific editing habits, tells, or something more concrete than a vague assertion of similarity based on hostility(do they both only edit full pages?  both make the same spelling errors in talk pages, both use   or other odd formatting habits, both edit the same articles, etc).  It is not uncommon at all for new users to be "hostile" or vocal.  It is also not uncommon for new users to have some familiarity with procedure.  All of the procedures are in the open and none of them are so complicated as to require specialist knowledge.  Even 3RR made it into xkcd. Protonk (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can understand this reaction. However, the work involved in compiling a behavioral report would be massive and still subjective, largely, unless insanely detailed. Since the real problem would be poor behavior, rather than putting that effort into showing similarity with Fd, I'd simply RfC Allemandtando on his behavior and leave Fd out of it. But if checkuser shows sufficient linkage, then all that becomes unnecessary, the community has already made a decision, effectively, about Fredrick day. I can say that I'm practically convinced, but I could also be wrong. Let's see what checkuser says.
 * But you can see how this could be viewed as a fishing expedition, right? I think that an SSP should be based on clear evidence (diffs of supporting revert warring) or significant circumstantial evidence (as was described above).  Given (IMO) the limited evidence provided here, what do we do with an inconclusive checkuser (same ISP or same city, state)?  If we had multiple simultaneous instances to dig from we could make a strong statistical argument, but here we can't. Protonk (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Core cause of early suspicion: newly registered account that comes out swinging, with detailed knowledge of Wikipedia procedure. Hence I questioned him about this early on, and he acknowledged being a "vanished user," but refused to communicate with a trusted adminstrator about his identity -- see the AN/I report on him, shortly after registration, essentially he called it a fishing expedition, though the reason for suspicion was clear and blatant. And he did not state he was a vanished user until he was confronted. Yes, lots of circumstantial evidence. Time to look at some real evidence, what does checkuser come up with? I'll file the report if nobody else gets there first, hopefully later today. It should list Fredrick day, Allemandtando, and the two IPs above, and any other IPs that anyone may have noticed in the last month that are likely Fredrick day. (I mention one edit above that has apparently been deleted, so it will take an admin to look for it. I posted to User talk:Shapiros10 or User talk:Xp54321, not sure which, sometime about a month ago, and Fd (probably it was him) posted a sexual allegation in response.--Abd (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As soon as I was asked about having a previous account, I answered - it's all there in the history. I also have confirmed my identity to an administrator and will be willing to do so again, any admin is welcome to email me to confirm that - so that's wrong as well. How long is this show trial going to be allow to go on? my last account was under my real name and I don't want it linked to this one. I am under no obligation to reveal my real name but have done so in communication with an admin. Am I suppose to tell everyone on wiki so there was no point having an account that does not link? What more do people want from me? blood samples? DNA? Am I suppose to defend myself to every half-truth and slur by this editor? --Allemandtando (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As to identity confirmation, excellent. Any evidence that this has been done? What admin? It was asked before, and it was refused, vociferously. There is no trial here. This is not a user conduct RfC, it is simply an SSP report, and if Allemandtando isn't Fredrick day, he has nothing to worry about from this. He doesn't want my advice, but it would be: shut up, unless you have actual evidence to present on the issue. If you aren't a sock of Fd, this will go away pretty quickly. The other stuff, the reasons why it was suspected that you might be a sock, isn't going to go away, it's Wikipedia history, but that is only mentioned here to call attention to possible behavioral similarities, enough to warrant checkuser. (Note that simple identity confirmation would not be enough, it would need to be an identity of someone not located where Fd is located, this problem has come up before with another suspected sock of Fd, which came up inconclusive at checkuser, and the editor in question likewise attempted to prove identity, which was moot. Without Fd's identity being known, it, unfortunately, doesn't establish the case. And Fd had other accounts, at least he claimed that. I've had some suspicions, and some of those accounts have stopped editing, so he might even have come back as another vanished user. --Abd (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just more slurs and inferences - not a diff provided, which is explicit in the instructions for this process. I will not make any comment here unless requested by an admin. My comments here just seem to feed into .... well whatever his problem is. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a comment to the evidence. It was not true that there were no diffs. There were enough to establish suspicion. Behavioral characteristic of Fredrick day: deny what is blatantly obvious, some people will prefer to believe the denial. I'm not going to spend days on an SSP report, though Fd has warranted some serious work in the past, see the original ref'd above. --Abd (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * this is explictly a fishing trip

''However, I filed an SSP report because I'm lazy. It was quite enough work for a morning, thank you very much. Because Fredrick day is pretty good with using other people's open wireless routers, multiple ISPs (I believe he has two that he regularly uses at home, he definitely has two monitors and probably runs more than one simultaneous login with independent computers and IPs), and proxies, the RFCU may come up inconclusive (most likely), '''but since it's much easier to file an RFCU than an RfC/U, and the former could make the latter moot, that's the way I went. So we'll see what happens.' --Allemandtando (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's see. Above, twice, Allemandtando says that he won't comment any more, second time because of mysterious legal issues. I suppose he can change his mind. The above comment of mine indicates that I see a good chance that the RFCU, which I have filed, will fail, because the puppet master involved is quite sophisticated, but because, first, he does make mistakes, that's how he was caught in the first place, and second, Allemandtando is very active and probably isn't using casual connections and proxies. I'd put it at almost fifty percent that RFCU will come up with either confirmation or the raising of overall probability to a high enough level that an admin might decide to act. If so, this could be far less wikifuss than an RfC. It's that simple. Fishing? Well, if I see what looks to me like a big fish raise its nose through an opening in the ice, and then go back under, yes, it's fishing to drop a line in the hole. But based on a reasonable suspicion. RFCU is harmless, I've been checkusered, and that so much fuss is being made about this is, in itself, suspicious for an experienced user, which this user clearly is. He's not a newcomer, who could be confused and think that it was necessary to answer the allegations and disprove them -- which is almost impossible. This is a page for "Suspected sock puppets," not for proven ones. If it was proven, it would be all over, and this page wouldn't be necessary. I'd present the evidence on AN/I, and that would be it.--Abd (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Allie said when he came back that he was never blocked, but his previous identity on wiki could be linked to his real-world identity, so he'd rather not let it be known publicly. If you've ever been outed to your real world identity, on the internet, Abd, you would not consider it harmless, it's a very unpleasant feeling and can have ramifications in real life or invoke a lot of (entirely reasonable) fear that it will do so, depending on one's personal circumstances. You don't know Allie's personal circumstances to know what his concerns are, people do have real world issues. Sticky Parkin 00:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sticky Parkin, it seems to me that you are being quite naive. Right, there can be good reasons. And there are ways to deal with that, which he previously refused to follow. Nothing I've done seeks to out his "real identity." However, it's pretty clear that he's Fredrick day which is not a "real identity," and was itself probably a throwaway account that surprised him by how long it lasted. He has now "retired." And Allemandtando "retired before," when it got hot in AN/I, see the early history of his Talk and User pages. Don't you think it's a little strange that someone appears with the name Killerofcruft, announces "I kill cruft," -- which after all, means "I kill stuff that some people really like," and then goes crying, boo hoo, they were mean to me? Remember, this is an experienced user. He clearly knows what Wikipedia is like. Allemandtando was in negotiation with Sarcasticidealist, by email, about his identity, see that admin's talk page. SI, however, knows some of Fd's tricks, and might not have been so easily fooled, but I don't know what happened (and I don't want SI to tell me, he can announce publicly what he sees fit, and keep private what should be kept private.) This was a disruptive user, playing out the same script that Fd played before, largely designed to get people fighting with each other, and, I predict, that just may yet continue.


 * I filed the RFCU report, big surprise. I don't yet know if it will be accepted for checkuser, you'd have to know Fd fairly well to recognize the pattern (or, I suppose, to imagine it), but I did provide a little evidence. Here's what I think: this was a throwaway account. He denies that, plaintively, in the RFCU report (see the report at Requests for checkuser/Case/Fredrick day (3rd), but Fredrick day has previous stated that he could do his deletionist work without having an account. But he does need an account to do AfD, and he, here, proved that he could register an account and come into AfD swinging and hardly anybody pulled the "sock puppet" whistle. Actually, some did, but others rushed to his defense, just as you have here. "He could be ... he might have a good reason ..." and then, of course, "Prove it or shut up." What's to stop him from doing the same thing all over again? I'll tell you. Only accepting that there must be users who notice stuff like this and start to track it, without becoming uncivil and disruptive, but *with* noting and documenting what is actually going on. If he wants to "return," and stay returned, he knows what to do. Keep his nose clean, don't be disruptive, do the work, but cooperatively, not as the great cruft-killing superhero that he made himself to be. Simple civility would have avoided all the negative attention, even with a whole boatload of cruft deletion. Think I'm blowing smoke? Why, then RFC me, for me to distort this out of some personal agenda would be very serious, definite wikitrout stuff if not worse.--Abd (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So presuming that the checkuser comes back negative, there is an apology in the works, right? Because none of this makes sense if he isn't fred day.  If he isn't fred day, then you just entertained this whole shabang for nothing.  If he is, fine, whatever, you were right.  But imagine this WHOLE exchange if he wasn't.  I don't think it is fair (and you know it isn't fair, that's why you dared the RFC) to enter in to some community process against you based on the outcome of someone else's checkuser.  I would have to prove that this was totally meritless without invoking the "truth" of the matter.  But if he's retired (or on a break, whatever) because of this and it comes back as not Fred Day, what are you going to do? Protonk (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Several questions mixed up here. If RFCU finds that Allemandtando is regularly accessing the internet in a manner not co-located with Fredrick day (i.e., one of the blocks he is known to use), I might issue an apology for the very minor fuss involved. To deal with this SSP report and the RFCU report, Allemantando didn't need to do anything if he's innocent, just stand out of the way and watch the RFCU fail. That's what I did when I was RFCU'd. But this is a disruptive user, was from the first days of registration. So, should RFCU fail -- or simply not be performed, that's quite possible -- next step would not be an apology, but the next step, probably, would be an RfC, since I did attempt, numerous times, to resolve the disputes, which was uncivilly rejected. Now, as to an RfC for me, if I've been abusive in any of my behavior, his retirement would be moot, wouldn't it? You think I've been abusive to another wikipedia editor, how about showoing that, with evidence, for neutral editors to look at? There is RFC/U and ArbComm beyond that. But please notice. I don't like preparing these complicated evidence pages, it takes enormous amounts of time, but once I'm pushed into doing it -- and Allemandtando really did that, shaming and blaming and taunting, on my user page -- I'll do it as well as I can. A mirror will be raised for you to look in, with all of us together. Be sure that you'll like what you'll see in that mirror before forcing that process. Allemandtando was bluffing, and I think he's laughing now. "Fooled them! Lasted a whole month!" Even if he's not Fredrick day, there are others who think the same way. --Abd (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to doubt KoC's word. He's also done some good work that others have liked, and some people have to an extent appreciated his approach.  So, not just here on wiki to cause disruption.  As to your own actions- I don't know enough about what you've done, and am not particularly interested except when I see someone 'gunning for' another editor I find it unpleasant, and some of the bullying I've seen by 'fans' on many different types of for instance sci fi articles, I've found very unpleasant.  I'm not sufficiently personally involved to be interested in making an RfC against you or anything, nor should you think that anyone who momentarily disagreed with you might want to. You're entitled to your opinion, I just personally hope you are mistaken.  Did Allie tried to remove something of which you were a fan or something like that? (joke) :)   P.S.  What do you mean by all that 'hold up a mirror with all of us together" mallarkey?  I'm not ashamed of anything I've done, personally.  And I don't think Alle's laughing about this- he hasn't left as if he's laughing, but as if it's been ruined for him, saying "the stalking's taken all the fun out of it." Sticky Parkin 02:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll see. I'm gonna agree with stickie about the "mirror to us all" business. No one did this but you and alle. No one held a gun to your head, or his. This doesn't reflect on anyone else. If he is fred day, then that is a shame, If he's not, then that is a far greater shame. You are right that reacting the way he did doesn't reflect well upon him. But I'm not particularly impressed with the "if you have nothing to hide..." line of argument to justify scrutiny. Protonk (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that there wasn't stalking. The editor made 2364 edits in a month, the vast majority of which I haven't seen. I occasionally, when provoked, looked at his contributions, I commented in maybe two or three AfDs or MfDs that I saw there, and in possibly a couple of AN/I reports; our overlap wasn't continual and it wasn't harassment; but I occasionally confronted and commented on his edit warring and his incivility. And he cried the same way when he first "retired," which I had practically nothing to do with.  Two days ago, he essentially demanded that I put up or shut up on my Talk  -- he had already banned me from his Talk. And when I did what he demanded today, and finally put some diffs on that evidence page that bothered him so much when it was empty, and filed this SSP report, he ran away, crying that it wasn't fun anymore. No, I'm not terribly sympathetic. This was an experienced editor wikilawyering and bullying inexperienced editors, insulting them and what they care about, taking pleasure -- clearly gleeful -- in deleting their favorite topics, instead of bringing these editors into the community and assisting and guiding them. He may have caused us to lose many editors, who will just go away disappointed when they find their work has disappeared and they don't understand why. I've been able to "rescue" maybe two editors, whose articles are still deleted, but now they know what needs to be found, and their relationship with Wikipedia isn't demolished, and if the sources are found, fine, the articles will come back, and if not, they will understand why, and accept it. He and those like him are doing a lot of damage, and, please, this is not about deletionism vs. inclusionism. It's about civility and community and consensus versus some kind of a crusade against "cruft." The very term has properly come to be considered uncivil. The tragedy is that there were people cheering him, enabling him, egging him on. With friends like this, he doesn't need enemies. --Abd (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) OK. Now I see things clearly.  Thanks for that moment of clarity.  Before I thought it was about dispassionate inquiry. Protonk (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser came back: Likely.. I'd say that is it, folks. The coincidence level is now way too high. I consider, given the sophistication of this user, the prior use of multiple ISPs and proxies, his prior (as Fd) rapid abandonment of an account when discovery and checkuser was immanent, when the handwriting was on the wall, and the rest, this was the blocked Fredrick day, period, it becomes insane to continue to hold on to the shred of possibility that the quacking and the looking and the walking and home address of this duck was all a coincidence, users have been blocked for far less. I'm requesting an indef block and Sock tag on the user/talk page, I should not do it myself, because I have every appearance of conflict of interest. My condolences to the deletionists. Seriously. Allemandtando was doing some good things. Problem was how he was doing it, which was seriously disruptive. And, Protonk and Sticky Parkin, he's laughing. I have little doubt but that he has other accounts. I'll do something about that when I can, it's a far more difficult problem. Fredrick, you lied to these people. People who would be your friends, who trusted you and who stood up and defended you. Have you no shame? The least you could do is to apologize to them. You know how to do it, and I would strongly discourage the deletion of any apologies on user Talk pages, though you could do it on your own Talk, I suppose that would be adequate.--Abd (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Where do you get "beyond a doubt" from "likely"? I don't do checkuser, so I don't know what "likely" means in this context and the documentation for this particular feature is wanting in that regard. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually wrote a long response to this and dumped it. Ask somebody else. I'm done with this report, unless someone has a question to ask that only I can answer. But, quickly: "beyond a doubt" comes from combination of behavioral evidence with checkuser result. Behavioral evidence was enough to take me to, say, 90% confidence this was Fd. Without knowing exact details, I can't be sure, but checkuser divided the error (10%) by roughly 100,000 or so. One chance in a million it is not Fredrick day. We aren't taking him out to be shot. But he might be blocked from editing Wikipedia, on a reasonable expectation that allowing it would be disruptive, as it was in the past, and as, I believe it could be established, it was this time as well. Within a few days of registration, edit warring with two administrators? Try learning about a situation before opining so extensively and forcefully. --Abd (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What a thoroughly pleasant and nonpatronizing reply. Protonk (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The most excellent User:Coldmachine was blocked for weeks as a "likely" sock years ago, but later completely exonerated. The accusation was from a sock master.  Not saying Abd is a sockmaster at all, just saying "likely" is not always 100% proof by any means, and this SSP result can never be proven, especially without an RFCU, and probably even that evidence has expired.  Abd, file an RFCU and as KoC/Allie said to someone in one of his edit summaries "put your money where your mouth is.":)  As to what to do if Allie is a sock, I think he's doing good work so it makes no odds to me.  I wonder why Abd cares/had it in for him? Sticky Parkin 21:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, Sticky Parkin, have you been reading this stuff? I filed an RFCU, link above. It came back Likely which is about as clear as it could possibly get, given Fredrick day's modus operandi. Do you realize the odds against my having correctly guessed that this would come back with some confirmation, staking my reputation on it? Let's see, did I mention that there was an RFCU. And as to the implications of bad faith, well, what goes around comes around. Word to the wise. But no more here. I'll look at Coldmachine and comment on your Talk page.--Abd (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can mention it all you want. The words have no talismanic power.  I don't know what "likely" means in this context.  I asked for some clarification but I got an admonishment instead.  I submit that you are combining your assessment of the behavioral evidence with some idea of "likely" from a checkuser.  What does that mean?  Same city?  Same ISP?  Same IP?  Edits made through an open proxy?  What?  My assessment of the behavioral evidence is different from yours, as apparently, is sticky's.  I see it as much weaker.  New accounts enter in to process disputes all the time.  Look at my first account contributions.  All to AfD, all with some idea of the rules and norms.  There could be a dozen reasons why the evidence you came up with doesn't result in KoC being fred day. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I responded to this in Talk, with some detailed examination of the odds and some current IP behavior. --Abd (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Allemandtando is indef blocked as a sock of Frederick day. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)